This is because juries are often perceived as less confined by black letter law than judges.

Nevertheless, just weeks before the O'Bannon v. NCAA trial was slated to begin, Ed O'Bannon's lawyers decided to forgo a jury trial in favor of one decided by a judge, Hon. Claudia Wilken.

This decision -- albeit non-conventional -- has proved omniscient in light of the NCAA lawyers' day one questioning of Ed O'Bannon.

According to numerous live feeds of the trial, a meaningful part of NCAA lawyers' day one cross-examination of Ed O'Bannon focused on a slippery slope argument between paying college athletes and paying those who participate in the Little League World Series.

The intent of this line of questioning seemed to have been to either force Ed O'Bannon to acknowledge that not all televised athletes deserve pay, or alternatively to try to make Ed O'Bannon look foolish in his argument that everyone on TV must be paid, without exception.

When the law is on your side, a jury of your peers may not always be preferable. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Had this been a jury trial, the NCAA's line of questioning might have been persuasive, especially if the NCAA's lawyers continued to progress the line of questioning to its extreme and cast the issue as one related to distributive justice rather than a restraint of trade.